The Seahawks on the road are better than a 1-4 team. Lets take a closer look at each of the losses:

@ Arizona: This was RW's first NFL game, and we had JR Sweezy playing guard in his first NFL game (with no experience at guard) against one of the best pass rushing DTs in the league. He was overmatched, and RW was unprepared for that kind of pressure. And he still nearly led a game-winning TD drive. Since then, RW has improved dramatically and we have Carpenter and Moffitt back to shore up the interior OL.

@ St. Louis: We had terrible luck with bounces. RW had two or three interceptions that were flukes. We held STL to no offensive TDs. They scored a TD on a fake field goal, and the only reason it worked was because the officials didn't see Pete Carroll call timeout. Their kicker also had 58 and 60 yard field goals. How often is that going to happen? Fluke loss IMO.

@ San Francisco: Its very tough winning on the road on short rest, especially against a high quality team. And they even kept it within a TD. Football Outsiders has an article about the effects of rest on a short week, and it pretty much says what everyone would expect. Teams don't play well on the road on short rest. http://www.footballoutsiders.com/extra-points/2012/fo-mailbag-effect-rest-game-dvoa Its not a fluke loss, but not one you should reasonably expect them to win.

@ Detroit: The offense improved a lot. As for the defense, allowing 12 of 16 third down conversions is a fluke, especially when you're dominating the opponent on first and second down. Yes the defense had a bit of a down day, but you can't blame the defense for our road woes. They have the #2 defensive DVOA at home and the #4 defensive DVOA on the road. Jason Jones missed this game, and his absence really hurt the pass rush, which would've helped the third down conversion rate. Another fluke loss, IMO.

With better health after the bye and their luck regressing toward the mean, I think we'll see the team finish out these last three road games strong, and possibly even up our road record at 4-4.

"Flukie" things happen to young teams more often than they do to experienced teams. This team is getting experience and fewer "flukie" things are happening. I think we'll see a lot fewer "flukes" happening from here on out.

First of all, saying ARI was Wilson's first game is not an excuse. Our coaching staff chose to go with a rookie; you also choose to live with rookie growing pains. A lot of us expected to lose a few close games due to Wilson not quite being there, or to lose a couple of games due to rookie mistakes. Saying it's a fluke seems disengenuous.

STL was an offensive team let down. Lots of drops, a few misses by Wilson, etc. and there you go. "The ball bounced the wrong way" is just the way the game is, saying it's a fluke or we "had bad luck" also is just a cop out. If you don't want the ball to bounce the wrong way, don't put it on the ground or throw it to the other team.

Detroit was a defensive team let down. Period.

SF we just got beat. That and a few drops, but once again, drops aren't a fluke. If you want to win games, your playmakers have to make plays in those situations.

So far, we are what are record says we are: a poor road team. You can say we've improved, you can say we've come up just short, but the honest truth is that we didn't do enough to win those games.

Plus Miami not only sucks at home but they also have a quiet Floridian filled crowd.

It'll be a good road pre-run for the team to get going in Chicago. Not that the game itself should be taken as anything but a tough road game, but the normal road effects will be a little less in Miami.

First of all, saying ARI was Wilson's first game is not an excuse. Our coaching staff chose to go with a rookie; you also choose to live with rookie growing pains. A lot of us expected to lose a few close games due to Wilson not quite being there, or to lose a couple of games due to rookie mistakes. Saying it's a fluke seems disengenuous.

STL was an offensive team let down. Lots of drops, a few misses by Wilson, etc. and there you go. "The ball bounced the wrong way" is just the way the game is, saying it's a fluke or we "had bad luck" also is just a cop out. If you don't want the ball to bounce the wrong way, don't put it on the ground or throw it to the other team.

Detroit was a defensive team let down. Period.

SF we just got beat. That and a few drops, but once again, drops aren't a fluke. If you want to win games, your playmakers have to make plays in those situations.

So far, we are what are record says we are: a poor road team. You can say we've improved, you can say we've come up just short, but the honest truth is that we didn't do enough to win those games.

I never said the Arizona game was a fluke. I should've said we shouldn't have expected to win that game, because it was RW's first game. And it being his first game absolutely is an excuse, especially if we're trying to predict future road performance.

I also specifically said the SF game wasn't a fluke.

My point that I failed to convey is that we shouldn't expect to have the same road struggles to finish out the season, due to team improvement, particularly from RW, and luck averaging out. Although our record doesn't reflect it, we've played better than a 1-4 road team.

It's not a fluke when you look at our road record over the years. Also if you want to say those games were flukes then so was our win* over GB. You are as good as your record, period. Win on the road and then I will become a believer and not before.

First of all, saying ARI was Wilson's first game is not an excuse. Our coaching staff chose to go with a rookie; you also choose to live with rookie growing pains. A lot of us expected to lose a few close games due to Wilson not quite being there, or to lose a couple of games due to rookie mistakes. Saying it's a fluke seems disengenuous.

STL was an offensive team let down. Lots of drops, a few misses by Wilson, etc. and there you go. "The ball bounced the wrong way" is just the way the game is, saying it's a fluke or we "had bad luck" also is just a cop out. If you don't want the ball to bounce the wrong way, don't put it on the ground or throw it to the other team.

Detroit was a defensive team let down. Period.

SF we just got beat. That and a few drops, but once again, drops aren't a fluke. If you want to win games, your playmakers have to make plays in those situations.

So far, we are what are record says we are: a poor road team. You can say we've improved, you can say we've come up just short, but the honest truth is that we didn't do enough to win those games.

I never said the Arizona game was a fluke. I should've said we shouldn't have expected to win that game, because it was RW's first game. And it being his first game absolutely is an excuse, especially if we're trying to predict future road performance.

I also specifically said the SF game wasn't a fluke.

My point that I failed to convey is that we shouldn't expect to have the same road struggles to finish out the season, due to team improvement, particularly from RW, and luck averaging out. Although our record doesn't reflect it, we've played better than a 1-4 road team.

Basically, yours is a homer analysis on a Seattle forum. No surprise here.

seabowl wrote: Also if you want to say those games were flukes then so was our win* over GB. You are as good as your record, period.

I wouldn't put an asterisk on that win, remember that pass interference on Cam Chancellor that allowed GB to continue their drive was complete BS. That catch at the end of the game evened that back out in my opinion.

However, back to the point at hand. I've noticed this about the Seahawks throughout my history of following the team. It seems as though the Seahawks usually finish right in the 8-8 area aside from a few really bad and really good years and I credit that to geography. Being in Seattle, there is quite of bit of isolation from other teams, closest road game is in San Fransisco and that's still a ways away. I think the Seahawks have a HUGE advantage at home not only for the 12th man but for the extensive travel for the road teams however it backlashes for the Seahawks having to travel from Seattle to other cities for any road game which becomes a huge disadvantage.

Not saying this is the ONLY reason but I honestly feel its very significant. To validate my point, I travel on a race team and regardless how much work you do, flying to and from places will wear you out especially if they are long flights. As tight as a week by week basis such as football schedules, it's important to remember that in that tight scheduling one whole day is reserved just for traveling and nothing else, and that's not fully taking into account time zone changes and length of flights. Like I said this is not the only reason why the Seahawks are struggling on the road and should be used as an excuse but I believe this reality has to be noted significantly in order to overcome the circumstances at hand.

Hawks46 wrote:Our coaching staff chose to go with a rookie; you also choose to live with rookie growing pains. A lot of us expected to lose a few close games due to Wilson not quite being there, or to lose a couple of games due to rookie mistakes. Saying it's a fluke seems disengenuous.

So does reducing the whole matter down to "we're a poor road team" when part of the problem is, as you so correctly stated, a rookie QB who has to learn the game.

Erebus wrote:My point that I failed to convey is that we shouldn't expect to have the same road struggles to finish out the season, due to team improvement, particularly from RW, and luck averaging out. Although our record doesn't reflect it, we've played better than a 1-4 road team.

Well said.

I can't express how much I hate the phrase "you're as good as your record." That might be true if the question is "How much has this team accomplished?" But if you're making a predictive analysis of how a team could be expected to perform in the future, looking at W-L (especially over a 5 game sample) isn't going to tell you much.

rideaducati wrote:"Flukie" things happen to young teams more often than they do to experienced teams. This team is getting experience and fewer "flukie" things are happening. I think we'll see a lot fewer "flukes" happening from here on out.

-Tate's catch vs GB-Ryan Kalil was out for the season, otherwise we would have seen SkyCam on the 1 yard line at Carolina. -NE goes 3 and out when they have a chance to run out the clock with one or two more first downs. They had only had a few three and outs the whole year.

There's a difference between losing a close game that you maybe should have won, and "fluke". We could be 10-0 but we could also be 3-7...

The most encouraging part of our season is that there are no teams that can blow us away anymore. We can compete in any game. We are used to playing in close games as well- for a young team this is invaluable and will show well in the playoffs.

Erebus wrote:My point that I failed to convey is that we shouldn't expect to have the same road struggles to finish out the season, due to team improvement, particularly from RW, and luck averaging out. Although our record doesn't reflect it, we've played better than a 1-4 road team.

Well said.

I can't express how much I hate the phrase "you're as good as your record." That might be true if the question is "How much has this team accomplished?" But if you're making a predictive analysis of how a team could be expected to perform in the future, looking at W-L (especially over a 5 game sample) isn't going to tell you much.

Just tell the 16-0 Pats and the 15-1 Packers they're as good as their record. They've got the ring to prove it!Any given sunday boys.

I think Pete has developed a way to work the road deficit problems for the most part, our intensity overall is maintained from the first snap to the game end, penaltys and not having the maturity to deal with home town calls has been what has hurt us the most.

To Be P/C or Not P/C That is the Question..........Seahawks kick Ass !!!! Check your PM's, Thank you for everything Radish RIP My Friend. Member of the 38 club.

With regards to the "you're as good as your record" argument... if that were the case, the New York Giants would've never won the Super Bowl last year. Nor would the Packers a few years ago.

Just my opinion but I'm in agreement with the camp that feels like this year is different. Sure, we've always lost on the road, with every coaching staff. However, this year feels different. We've been competitive in all 4 of the road loses. I've seen the Hawks be competitive on the road once in a while, but 4 times in one half of a season? Something's got to give. This team is going to put it all together sooner rather than later and a whole bunch of people are going to be upset that they didn't believe from Day One.

Here's to Miami getting utterly demoralized all day long on Sunday just so that the "magical pixie dust road woes" crowd will start to waver a little bit.

Erebus wrote:My point that I failed to convey is that we shouldn't expect to have the same road struggles to finish out the season, due to team improvement, particularly from RW, and luck averaging out. Although our record doesn't reflect it, we've played better than a 1-4 road team.

Well said.

I can't express how much I hate the phrase "you're as good as your record." That might be true if the question is "How much has this team accomplished?" But if you're making a predictive analysis of how a team could be expected to perform in the future, looking at W-L (especially over a 5 game sample) isn't going to tell you much.

Thank you, jewhawk. That overused and trite phrase is useless and always has been.

Have to agree with the OP. If you look at our schedule the first half of the season we played a lot of hard fought emotional battles and doing it while trying to acclimate parts of our team and grow. You could see the effects of all that in some of our mid games like how our defense just seemed completely gassed in Detroit or how we seemingly shut down in the second half against the Niners.

The Bi and second half schedule look much more promising for better results. Those fluke scenario's that almost become predictable from a team running on empty, shouldn't play as big a part for the remainder of the season. Add in that we seem to have dramatically improved on penalties that shoot you in the foot and our rooks have at least a half season of experience with our offense gaining chemistry and better results look much more likely.

I don't think you are being a homer to believe we could see better results over the remaining schedule.

seabowl wrote:It's not a fluke when you look at our road record over the years. Also if you want to say those games were flukes then so was our win* over GB. You are as good as your record, period. Win on the road and then I will become a believer and not before.

I don't think the past road record matters except perhaps last year. This is a different team and coaching staff now. What happened in the Holmgren/Mora era is irrelevant with regard to this team.

This team is quite young and still melding and improving. I don't necessarily agree with the "fluke" theory as much as the "youth theory.

Erebus wrote:@ San Francisco: Its very tough winning on the road on short rest, especially against a high quality team. And they even kept it within a TD. Football Outsiders has an article about the effects of rest on a short week, and it pretty much says what everyone would expect. Teams don't play well on the road on short rest. http://www.footballoutsiders.com/extra-points/2012/fo-mailbag-effect-rest-game-dvoa Its not a fluke loss, but not one you should reasonably expect them to win.

I tend to agree with the short week issue. But at the same time it is something that good teams tend to overcome, hence why they are good teams.

Last year I got a lot of flack on this board in regards to the Ravens. We were talking about SOS, and I was trying to explain my thoughts on why I don't think SOS holds much ground. One reason was that it does not account for things like injuries, away/home, and short week. We had the Ravens last year on a 4 day short week away game and lost. On the flip side the hawks had the Ravens at home on a full week. Being away is a disadvantage, so is the 6 day short week. The point I was trying to make was being away AND having not only a short week, but a 4 day short week... was obviously a big disadvantage and not something that could be accounted for in the two teams comparative SOS.

If it was the other way around I'm sure opinions would have been different

Short week does suck, and I think it can provide some sort of disadvantage. But again, I feel it is something that good teams learn to overcome. Not saying the Hawks are not a good team, as I have expressed my concern for the threat of the hawks since the off season. Just saying it is still something you are learning to overcome.

On a side note, I know it seems unfair you have the short week away against us this year, but keep in mind you had a 6 day short week. Last year we had a 5 day (Saturday game) short week while traveling to you, and we know how that turned out. So it happens to everyone, some worse than others.

Here's a thought: Maybe our road woes aren't anything unique. West coast teams travelling to the east coast for 10 am games have a horrendous .321 win % excluding 2011, which was an outlier year. Compare that to the NFL average road team winning percentage of .434 and you'll see that the travel and change of time has a huge effect on the players circadian rhythms. You can learn more here about the huge disadvantage it is for west coast teams to travel east at coldhardfootballfacts.

No surprise games between teams from the same time zone saw the home team’s record hover around the NFL’s normal home-field advantage. What is surprising is that Central teams were 11-11 at home when playing Denver and Arizona, and just 31-24 (.564) at home against the Pacific teams.

The big news is the Eastern teams dominating the six Western teams, going 44-15 (.746) against Pacific, and 24-11 (.686) against the Mountain. Combined, that is a staggering 68-26 (.723) record against Western teams

Richard Sherman doesn't just wanna get in your head, he wants to build a vacation home there.

seabowl wrote:It's not a fluke when you look at our road record over the years. Also if you want to say those games were flukes then so was our win* over GB. You are as good as your record, period. Win on the road and then I will become a believer and not before.

I don't think the past road record matters except perhaps last year. This is a different team and coaching staff now. What happened in the Holmgren/Mora era is irrelevant with regard to this team.

This team is quite young and still melding and improving. I don't necessarily agree with the "fluke" theory as much as the "youth theory.

The road record by itself is a bit lower than expectation in that if you calculate how often our games would have gone one way or another if you replayed the last 5:00 of the game 100 times, you shouldn't statistically expect us to have lost 4 of 5.

To look at a distribution...Seahawks at Cardinals: Cards were inside the red zone with 5 minutes left, down by 3 and driving effectively with Kolb under center. Under those conditions we probably win this game ~40% of the time.Seahawks at Rams: Seahawks hadn't put together a TD drive since the opening drive and were going to need one to win, as it was unlikely there would be time for two FGs. We had the ball on our own end of the field. If we do score a TD we probably win, as the defense hadn't given much up to the Ram offense. Under those conditions we probably win this game ~22% of the time.Seahawks at Panthers: Panthers were in the red zone with 5 minutes left, down by 6 and having a good extended drive. If they score then there was plenty of time to respond, but this game was a struggle on the offensive side again. Under those conditions we probably win the game ~50% of the time.Seahawks at 49ers: Seahawks down 7 with 5 minutues left, ball on their own end of the field, against an elite defense that was positively stifling all night. Under those conditions we probably win the game ~15% of the time.Seahawks at Lions: Lions down 3 with 5 minutes left, just made a first down to their own 35. Their production had been up and down all day. This was the first road game where it actually felt like the Seahawks could respond if the Lions scored but left a reasonable amount of time on the clock. Under those conditions we probably win ~60% of the time.

If my ballpark estimates seem reasonable, that would give us a win expectation of 1.87 in the five games given the endgame scenarios we were facing. So I'd say we're a bit unlucky to be 1-4 rather than 2-3 on the road, but not grossly unlucky or anything.

By the same token, I'd quickly assess our other games at the same point in the game (5:00 left) and call it...Dallas: We were crushing and it was pretty much over. 99%.Green Bay: Had the ball down five on our side of the field. Just got bailed out of a pick by an iffy roughing the passer call. Offense wasn't moving well in this game, but there was a lot of time left and our defense was positively crushing. 25%.New England: New England was up six and had converted a first down to near midfield. While there was a reasonable chance of stopping them, we were going to have to march the whole field to get there in all likelihood. 30%.Minnesota: Up 10, ball across midfield...a key turnover was almost going to have to happen to lose this game. 90%NY Jets: We were crushing and it was pretty much over. 99%.

Those numbers would put our home win expectation in endgame scenarios at 3.43.

All in all, an estimated win expectation of 5.3 so far. So yeah, overall we're a little unlucky on the road so far but we're a little lucky overall. Some will undoubtedly reject boiling the game down to numbers, but that's what the "game of inches" cliche is all about. The way some lucky breaks fall (the way a fumble bounces, the way a close officiating call comes down) can really make or break a season.

However, I agree with what a poster said previously, that past performance is not particularly predictive in this team's case. Thanks to the progression of Russell Wilson, we now field a very passable offense where at the beginning of the season we had an awful one. While I would argue that we're a bit fortunate to be 6-4, I would also argue that going forward we're at least as good as a 6-4 team if not a 7-3 team.

All teams have dropped passes, bad bounces etc. The great ones overcome them, the up and comers do not

Erebus wrote:The Seahawks on the road are better than a 1-4 team. Lets take a closer look at each of the losses:

@ Arizona: This was RW's first NFL game, and we had JR Sweezy playing guard in his first NFL game (with no experience at guard) against one of the best pass rushing DTs in the league. He was overmatched, and RW was unprepared for that kind of pressure. And he still nearly led a game-winning TD drive. Since then, RW has improved dramatically and we have Carpenter and Moffitt back to shore up the interior OL.

@ St. Louis: We had terrible luck with bounces. RW had two or three interceptions that were flukes. We held STL to no offensive TDs. They scored a TD on a fake field goal, and the only reason it worked was because the officials didn't see Pete Carroll call timeout. Their kicker also had 58 and 60 yard field goals. How often is that going to happen? Fluke loss IMO.

@ San Francisco: Its very tough winning on the road on short rest, especially against a high quality team. And they even kept it within a TD. Football Outsiders has an article about the effects of rest on a short week, and it pretty much says what everyone would expect. Teams don't play well on the road on short rest. http://www.footballoutsiders.com/extra-points/2012/fo-mailbag-effect-rest-game-dvoa Its not a fluke loss, but not one you should reasonably expect them to win.

@ Detroit: The offense improved a lot. As for the defense, allowing 12 of 16 third down conversions is a fluke, especially when you're dominating the opponent on first and second down. Yes the defense had a bit of a down day, but you can't blame the defense for our road woes. They have the #2 defensive DVOA at home and the #4 defensive DVOA on the road. Jason Jones missed this game, and his absence really hurt the pass rush, which would've helped the third down conversion rate. Another fluke loss, IMO.

With better health after the bye and their luck regressing toward the mean, I think we'll see the team finish out these last three road games strong, and possibly even up our road record at 4-4.

Erebus wrote:My point that I failed to convey is that we shouldn't expect to have the same road struggles to finish out the season, due to team improvement, particularly from RW, and luck averaging out. Although our record doesn't reflect it, we've played better than a 1-4 road team.

Well said.

I can't express how much I hate the phrase "you're as good as your record." That might be true if the question is "How much has this team accomplished?" But if you're making a predictive analysis of how a team could be expected to perform in the future, looking at W-L (especially over a 5 game sample) isn't going to tell you much.

Just tell the 16-0 Pats and the 15-1 Packers they're as good as their record. They've got the ring to prove it!Any given sunday boys.